Το κείμενο του εγγράφου

Mekong: To reduce poverty and foster development through management of water formultiple uses in large and small reservoirs

2. Project:

Project 1: On optimizing reservoir management for livelihoods

3. Project Data

Duration:4 years (with most activities compressed into the first 2.5 years)

Target start date: January 2010

Finish date: Dec 2013

(most key activities will finish by June 2012)

Any matching funds offered (provide brief explanation):

4. Project Deliverable

Develop strategies for optimizing water management, including sequential

management ofreservoirs

5. BDC Goals to which the Project will contribute

New water storage infrastructure (WSI) are being built in various tributaries of the Mekong,including (but not restricted to) the common border area between Lao PDR, Cambodia and

Vietnam. If this BDC is successfully addressed, these reservoirs will be managed in ways thatare more fair and equitable for all water users. WSI management will take account offisheries and agricultural potential as well as hydropower generation, and ripariancommunities will be able to utilize these water sources for multiple purposes. Catchmentswill be managed in ways that reduce erosion and the siltation of WSI, while benefitingriparian communities by opening up farming and other opportunities. Ofimportance will bethe ability to manage WSI sequentially, along the length of rivers, so as to optimize benefitsfor all. In order to achieve this, water governance–

must be improved, paving the way for policy andadministrative changes that enable the sharing of benefits among riparian communities,among water users and between nations.

6. Links with other projects in the Basin Development Challenge

The project will need to work with other projects in the BDC to contribute to a coherentresearch program that is lead by a Basin Leader. The project will need to work with Project 3to developmethods for scaling up research outputs to the basin level.

7. Project Summary

This project is about livelihoods, and how they can be improved through reservoirmanagement for multiple uses and users. It is about developing strategies for optimizing thebenefits of WSI and increasing the ways in which water can be utilized for the benefit of thepoor. Strategies can be developed for individual reservoirs or for cascades or systems ofreservoirs.

This project will explore ways in which riparian communities can improve their livelihoods bytaking advantage of agricultural, fisheries and other opportunities afforded by WSIdevelopment. Suitable strategies will broaden the uses of reservoir water to supportlivelihoods, benefit riparian and downstream communities alike, increase the lifespan of

Research on water use and livelihoods will take account of different needs (agriculture,fisheries, hydropower, and the environment–

for example, wetlands preservation) fordifferent user groups (including gender differentiation). These needs can be direct orindirect (for example, health related issues), or for consumptive or non-consumptive use ofwater (for example, fisheries). In addition, water requirements may vary seasonally, annuallyor in the long-term (e.g. under the effects of global drivers such as climate change).

8. Links to previous and ongoing work

8.1 Previous and on-going work

What has been done to address the problem in the past and ongoing (by your partners, otherresearchers and in CPWF Phase one projects) that is relevant to implementing this project?Include in Section 16 a carefully selected list of relevant bibliographic references (normally nomore than 10).

The Mekong Basin has hosted many research and development initiatives that makeavailable considerable information, knowledge and tools for our project. For example, a keyfocus of the CPWF’s Mekong Basin Focal Project (BFP) was on changes in water regimes(especially dams and increasing irrigation diversions) that will impact water resources (interms of quantity, quality and timing) and the related impacts on agricultural productivity,fisheries productivity, income, health and wellbeing. The Mekong BFP has produced variousproducts linked to these topics

provide guidance through its framework for facilitating a morecoordinated approach to integrated development through IWRM. Implementing thisstrategy is currently supported by projects under the Mekong Water Resources AssistanceStrategy of the World Bank and Asian Development Bank (World Bank–ADB, 2006).

Also pertinent

are the World Commission on Dams (WCD) recommendations, the DamsDevelopment Project and the International Hydropower Association’s (IHA) protocols forsustainable hydropower development.

The WCD calls for including all stakeholders inplanning and managing water resources in reservoirs and a more equitable distribution ofbenefits gained from dams. This can be facilitated through Decision Support Systems (DSS)which help structure decision processes and support analysis of the consequences ofpossible decision choices. Modern DSS can help understand system dynamics and facilitatethe communication of information to people without technical abilities, so they canparticipate more fully in decision-making.

Several CPWF Phase One projects offer relevant DSS tools for optimizing various WSImanagement scenarios. PN36 utilized a number of tools to investigate inclusion ofenvironmental and social issues in dam operation in the Nile Basin, including use of waterresource models such as the Water Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) Model, theenvironmental flow model, and the Desktop Reserve Model (DRM) (McCartney, 2007; 2009).In PN10, decision support tools were developed by the WorldFish Center using Bayesian

3

modeling to integrate sectoral priorities for sluice gate operation in the Mekong Delta,including rice production, shrimp farming, and freshwater fisheries. This included localstakeholder dialogues on optimizing sectoral outputs for management

objectives includingfood security and income generation, and training key local stakeholders to use and updatethese tools (Baran and Jantunen 2004).

Hoanh et al. (1998) and Roetter et al. (2005) developed multi-scale models applying LUPASapproach developed under the CGIAR SysNet project for land and water use optimization.This approach was applied to develop a model for

optimizing land and water use forhydropower, irrigation, crop and livestock, domestic supply and industry in Thailand’s MaeKlong river basin (IWMI-SEA, 2003); and can be used as the basis for DSS to be developed inthis project

Stakeholder participation in scenario building options is a critical aspect of our work and wewill build on our previous experiences such as PN71, where various participatory tools wereused to facilitate stakeholder engagement in the commune agro-ecosystem analysis (CAEA)approach in Cambodia, which studied water allocation in the Tonle Sap for fisheries andagriculture (CPWF, 2007).

8.2 Lessons learned

What are the lessons or conclusions that can be drawn from this work?

Current knowledge demonstrates that whiledams are constructed to bring social andeconomic benefits, they also produce social costs. Decision-makers must either avoid ormitigate these costs if WSI are to become more sustainable and their netsocial andeconomic benefits maximized.This requires better dam planning and management andattribution of equal weight to engineering and economic aspects at the different stages inthe planning cycle of WSI. This also implies more meaningful (i.e. beyond being justinformed) stakeholder participation in decision-making processes which can be enhancedwith DSS (McCartney, 2007; 2009).

Several challenges to applying these lessons persist in the Lower

Mekong. Water resourcesmanagement capacity remains limited, with varying degrees of competence amongcountries and line agencies, and limited experience in applying IWRM. Sub-basin managersface the additional challenge of integrating processes both horizontally between sectors,and vertically between national, provincial and local government (World Bank-ADB, 2006).

Supporting agriculture and fisheries livelihoods in hydropower dam impact zones is alsofraught with difficulty, both technical and social.Although WSI such as irrigation schemescan help diversify local livelihoods, such diversification may occur at the cost of livelihoodsfrom fisheries, rather than from new economic opportunities created by irrigation. Unlesslocal communities are actively

involved in the planning and management of such structures,the costs and benefits can be unevenly distributed, with downstream fisheries livelihoodstypically bearing the heaviest costs.

WorldFish and MRC recently completed a review of documented impacts of dams onfisheries-dependent livelihoods around the world including the Mekong region, andlivelihood compensation or mitigation measures proposed or implemented through EIAs.The review results are consistent with the conclusion of an international expert groupmeeting convened by MRC (September 2008), that in the Lower Mekong Region,

4

compensation for loss in yield from river fisheries is impossible to achieve throughdevelopment of reservoir fisheries without relying heavily on the introduction of exoticspecies such as tilapia and carp, possibly with adverse ecological effects, and can be costly tosustain. The study also reviewed numerous hydropower EIAs in Laos and Vietnam, withimportant lessons on key stakeholders, livelihood impacts, mitigation measures for the threetarget areas. (Baran et al. in press).

9.Research questions

The following are the research questions that this project should address:

-

How can the fisheries and agricultural benefits from WSI in the research target area berealized?

-

How should WSI management strategies be altered in order to benefit downstreamsmall-scale agriculturalists and fishing communities?

-

If WSI management strategies were altered in certain ways, what benefits would ariseas a consequence, and can these be

measured in economic terms? Will hydroelectricpower generation suffer from the adoption of such procedures?

How will your research address these research questions?

The prudent and sustainable use of WSI requires consideration of a large number of complexand inter-related issues and poses intricate technical and political challenges. Optimizingreservoir releases must take account water uses and users up-

and down-stream of the damwall. There are a diverse range of livelihood options that include irrigated agriculture,fisheries, and livestock raising; nomadic livelihoods through collection of non-timber forestproducts (NTFP’s) and hunting that require the presence of and access to natural resources;economic imperatives that are in the National interest such as power generation; and waterrequirements for maintaining ecosystem services and biodiversity. Critical in the sustainableutilization of WSI is the maximization of benefits that would accrue to all parties and theenvironment.

Through our research, we will examine how to optimize the productivity and equitable useof water stored in reservoirs by analyzing trade-offs and promoting synergies betweendifferent use options, in a manner that optimizes income and food security (for farmers,fishers and riparian communities), water productivity (hydropower, irrigation) andenvironmental sustainability, while minimizing negative impacts.

To accomplish this, we will adopt an integrative framework linking two research components(Figure 1). Livelihoods component or Component 1: will characterise the natural and agro-ecological systems and resource base available and identify strategies to secure, enhanceand improve existing livelihoods, through optimizing benefits of the WSI, in addition toexploring alternative livelihood options for farmers, fishers and riparian communities in theimpact zone of large reservoirs. DSS component or Component 2: linked to (1), develop aDSS and facilitate stakeholder dialogues aimed at optimizing water management forcompeting uses, including agricultural and fisheries production, livelihoods, hydropowergeneration and environmental requirements. Emphasis will be placed on engaging local andnationalstakeholders in identifying desired outcomes at different scales, identify

prioritiesfor livelihood strategies, collecting and disseminating information, building their capacity touse the DSS developed, and ultimately to use this DSS for optimized design and operation oflarge reservoirs, with the use of various participatorytechniques.

5

Through the livelihoods and DSS components we will address the three research questionsposed above as follows:

How can the fisheries and agricultural benefits from WSI in the research target area berealized?

-

Investigate and understand (a) the operational characteristics of the WSI–

singly or intandem; (b) the specific environmental and ecological impacts of WSI development onthe land, water and fisheries resources; and (c) impacts on the livelihoods and welfareof affected communities within the impact zone, both upstream and downstream(under Output 1).

-

Evaluate the opportunities and constraints for agriculture and fisheries/aquaculturebased on the environmental and ecological attributes and socio-economiccircumstances of target communities (under Output 1).

-

Identify plausible livelihood options and determine the likelihood of uptake by affectedcommunities in the context of their livelihood objectives and perceptions ofopportunities and risks (under Output 2).

How should WSI management strategies be altered to benefit downstream small-scaleagriculturalists and fishing communities?

-

Determine the enabling conditions for livelihood-enhancement for the targetcommunities through improved agriculture and fisheries/aquaculture development,including strategies for lifting constraints due to existing WSI management strategies(under Output 3).

-

Assess the expected benefits from different strategy options and identify the mostplausible scenarios (under Output 3).

If WSI management strategieswere altered in certain ways, what benefits would arise as aconsequence, and can these be measured in economic terms? Will hydroelectric powergeneration suffer from the adoption of such procedures?

Use the scenarios to develop strategic adaptation response plans for the study sitesthat could be offered for piloting at these sites (under Output 4).

10. Research Outputs, Methods and Uptake Pathways

10.1 Project research outputs (from MTP)

Main responsibility

Strategies for optimizing reservoir water management that increase the productivity ofagriculture and fisheries, improve community livelihoods and contribute to environmentalconservation, at an acceptable cost to hydropower generation and irrigation

With Project 3:

Methods for scaling up research outputs to the basin level

What additional research outputs should the project produce, if any? What does theoutput(s) add to the BDC?

6

1) Livelihoods Component

Output 1-

Characterization of the natural and agro-ecological systems and existinglivelihood systems adopted by the communities living upstream, downstream and in theimpact zone of the selected WSI.

Output 2-

Identification of enhanced, improved or alternative livelihoods options availablefor farmers, fishers and riparian communities, through optimizing benefits of the selectedWSI.

2) DSS Component

Output 3–

Development of a

DSS package for evaluating resource use options, goalachievements and trade-offs in optimizing production and livelihoods objectives undervarious development and management scenarios defined with stakeholder inputs.

Output 4–

Identification of resource use options and livelihoods adaptation strategies byusing the DSS tools, under a set of development and management objectives prioritized bystakeholders for each impact zone of the selected WSI.

10.2 Project partners

Who will you work with to produce the outputs listed above (listactors; be specific)?

Along with WorldFish and International Centre for Environmental Management (ICEM) asinternational partners, we have selected three key NARES partners to collaborate with us(one in each of the countries we propose to work in). Our intention is that the selectednational partners would establish and manage key associations with other organizations andlocal institutions that are critical to the project. They will form crucial linkages for the projectinto line agencies (such as thoselinked to fisheries and water resources), ministries andother state and transboundary water resources actors along with the private sector.

Our NARES partners are:



The Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) within the Ministry of Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) in Cambodia



The National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) within the Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry in Laos PDR

It is envisaged that the immediate next users of the MK1 outputs will be the other MKprojects. For example, MK1 needs to ensure that research outputs (such as alternative landand water use strategies, flow criteria for different uses and agro-ecological profiles) feedinto the MK3 project, and are up-scaled to the catchment and basin scale. Similarly, variousMK1 outputs will feed into MK2, MK4 and MK5, as discussed in the CPWF inceptionworkshop in February 2010.

7

In addition, it is expected that the next users of the Livelihoods Component outputs will berelevant departments, ministries and policy makers in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnamdealing with agriculture, fisheries, water resource management and energy development.Further, it is envisaged that the private sector who are intimately involved in thedevelopment and operationof WSI will benefit and utilize the outputs from this project. Inaddition, staff members of development agencies, donors, consultancy companies andresearch institutes working on watershed management are likely to find our outputs a usefulsource. In thecase of the DSS Component outputs, it is envisaged that institutions thatinclude the MRC; ministries charged with water resources planning and development; WSIbuilders, operators and concessionaries that come from the private sector; and internationaland regional financial institutions charged with providing loans for WSI development will allbenefit from these outputs. Fromlessons learnt under the PN25 and PN50 projects bothcomponents will focus on capacity building with participation of NARES young researchersand university students for their degree (MSc, PhD) training because they will be the keyfuture users of our research outputs in the development of Mekong countries.

10.4 Learning required by next users

What will the next users of the outputsneed to learn to use the research outputs?

Learning needs will be minimal. We will explain our methods and describe our results withsufficient clarity that our target audience will understand our motivation, techniques, andoutcomes. It will be important

for the next users to understand and actively contribute todevelopment of the tools and methods that we adopt for future application. Beyond formalunderstanding, we believe that the approach and results can be disseminated in an intuitiveway so that the ideas and the implications for synergies and tradeoffs

can inform decisionmaking stakeholders more broadly.

10.5 Research methods

What research methods will you use to develop the outputs?

Output 1-

Characterization of the natural and agro-ecological systems and existinglivelihood systems

We will first undertake a general characterization of the natural systems (such as wetlands)and agro-ecological systems and resources found upstream, downstream and in the impactzone of the selected WSI. Through

these assessments we hope to gain a betterunderstanding of what resources are present and can be used in terms of livelihoods andwhat the trends have been in resource use in the context of the WSI development (e.g., hownatural resources such as fisheries are linked to flow regimes and how this has been alteredby the WSI construction) and the environmental impacts of WSI development. We will alsodetermine what key opportunities and constraints exist in the context of using the differentnatural and agro-ecological resources that are available. This assessment will be undertakenmainly through reviewing existing secondary data on natural and agro-ecological systemsand resources in the study sites, (particularly those conducted for reservoir EIAs and theirmonitoring programs). We will also use GIS methodologies to produce a set of maps of thestudy sites that depict resource use characteristics and geographic and seasonal patterns.We will complement and calibrate the secondary data analysis with targeted field datacollection, through interviews with key informants over two seasons and focus groupdiscussions where we will conduct participatory exercises on traditional ecologicalknowledge and resource use patterns with selected local communities at the

sites where thelivelihoods analyses will be undertaken.

8

We will thereafter focus on the livelihoods of communities living upstream, downstream andaround the selected WSI. First we will obtain an overview of the local people in the studysites througha review of secondary sources of data, including social impact assessments ofWSI development (if any) at the selected sites. This will include communities resettled by theconstruction of WSI and those affected downstream whose livelihoods are dependent onthe natural resource base that is impacted by changed flow regimes. Using a set of suitablecriteria (e.g. poverty status, resource use patterns, livelihoods engaged in, ethnicity, genderaspects, etc) we will then select a representative sample of the population to undertake amore in-depth livelihoods analysis. Through our investigation we hope to address thefollowing key questions:What livelihood activities are people currently engaged in? Wheredo they carry out these livelihood activities?What resources are they using?What are thegender differentials to consider in the context of resources and livelihoods? What are theother diversity factors (such as ethnicity, indigenous group, religion) that influence powerdynamics in the local communities and are linked to differences in resource uses? What istheir wealth status? How do existing formal and informal rules systems and organizationalstructures support or impede existing livelihoods systems in terms of value optimization,equitable distribution

of benefits and sustainability?

How has the WSI impacted theirlivelihood activities and general well-being?

And how have communities coped andadapted?

We will use a sustainable livelihoods approach for our investigation and explore the abovequestions

around the different elements of the sustainable livelihoods framework (DFID2001) that include:

-

Social, human, physical, financial and natural capital orassets, and their ability to putthese to productive use.

-

Livelihood strategies adopted based on the combination of assets available.

-

National, sub-national and local policies, rules and institutions and processes thatshape access to assets and opportunities.

-

Vulnerability to both natural and anthropogenic shocks and stresses.

For collection of primary data we will use a combination of participatory tools, householdsurveys and key informant interviews. In terms of the participatory tools, we will build onthe revised CAEA methodology developed under PN71 (CPWF, 2007). We place emphasis onthe tools that are more relevant in the context of the present set of research questions. Forexample, the tools that are associated with developing livelihood profiles and link to locallivelihoods activities such as fisheries, agriculture, NTFP collection and water resource uses.The focus group discussions, key informant interviews and questionnaires will be customizedto reflect the Mekong Basin issues and local knowledge. We envisage that our questions willbe developed over several iterations to ensure that they are adapted to local issues and arerelevant to the local context in the three sites.

The fieldwork will be conducted with theassistance of our local partners in the three countries. Two rounds of surveys will beconducted to ensure that seasonal variations in resource use patterns and livelihoods arecaptured. The first round will be considered the baseline survey for MK1. We propose toundertake both qualitative and quantitative analyses and our results will be at differentscales–

household level and commune level. These findings from Output 1, that includesocio-economic profiles of target populations, current livelihoods activities, etc.,will belinked to the decision support system (Output 3).

In the analysis of livelihood options, we will review secondary material on lessons learnedfrom livelihood compensation programs already established in our study sites or in similarWSI management initiatives. Baseline surveys already in existence for some of our studysites and available databases will be important sources of information, as well as Social

Impact Assessment reports and impact mitigation programs. Thereafter through a set ofparticipatory assessments held through focus group discussions, we will identify suitable andviable options available to the local communities associated with the WSI,such asopportunities linked to agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, NTFPs, animalhusbandry, etc. As proposing entirely new livelihood activities to communities usually entailshigh risks, we will also explore how existing livelihoods can be secured, enhanced orimproved upon through a review of secondary information sources and data collection usingparticipatory methods. The implications of existing formal and informal rules systems andorganizational structures for the viability of livelihoods options will also constitute part ofthese assessments.

Our focus is also likely to differ between our study sites in the three countries based on theircharacteristics

andthe natural resource base available

as well asthe operational status ofWSI in question. For example, we will place an emphasis on the potential use of thedrawdown area in

in lower Sesan river in Cambodia,where the site is a proposed new WSI in the downstream impact zone of upper Sesancascade.

The participatory tools we propose will be partly adapted from those developed in the CAEAmethodology under PN71 and include those that identify suitable alternatives andtechnological innovations in the context of livelihoods (CPWF, 2007). We willpay specialattention to the opportunities available to the most vulnerable and poorest groups. We willalso assess the impacts of these alternative livelihoods on poverty, gender and theenvironment. In addition, we will explore the institutional arrangements that would berequired (both formal and informal), policy environment, marketing networks andinfrastructure and importantly, the potential conflicts and trade-offs this could cause withother water users.

The assessment under Output 2 will be linked

closely to the findings of our first set ofactivities under Output 1. Our results from Output 2 will be from both the household andcommune level.Findings regarding potential livelihood options, the estimated productionlevels and benefits and the likely impacts on poverty and the environment are variables thatcould be fed into the DSS (Output 3) andalso the identification of favoured livelihoodadaptation strategies (Output 4). Otherfindings from Output 2–

for instance on how the WSIoperation might

be modified to improve livelihoods, particularly of those living downstream,and the implications of different options on primary WSI purpose (e.g. hydropower) will alsobe linked to Outputs 3.

Figure 1. Framework for the Decision Support System, showing linkages between Outputs ofComponents 1 and 2 of the study.

The development objectives are identifiedthrough stakeholder consultations usingparticipatory tools such as Bayesian networks or agent-based modeling (ABM) for elicitingtheir views and perceptions into structured decision rules. A preliminary set of inviteesidentifies the whole range of stakeholders, who are then engaged to identify objectives andmanagement options. They also create a tree of options in which possible inputs and valueof outputs are weighed. This process is repeated at three levels (local, provincial, andnational). The Bayesian approach allows transparent quantification at all levels andcomputation of potential trade-offs (Baran and Jantunen, 2004).

of selected production activities (includingagriculture and aquaculture) or ecosystem services; and the state and variation of theresources (such as climate change) in the target area, expressed as constraints. Theknowledge base is provided by findings

from Component 1 and from the stakeholderelicitation sessions using Bayesian/ABM tools.

The MGLP will be applied in several rounds of analysis. In the first round, every singleobjective function will be optimized without setting targets for other objective functions(Hoanh et al., 1998;Roetter et al., 2005;McCartney, 2007; 2009). Outputs of this round willbe the optimal achievements, either maximum or minimum, of each objective function toreflect the limit of the WSI capacity. In the second round,each objective function will beoptimized with targets set for another objective function. Outputs of this round are trade-offs between the two selected objective functions. In the subsequent rounds, each objectivefunction will be optimized with targets of other conflicting objective functions. Outputs ofthese rounds are the resource use options and achievements under different developmentand management scenarios (Hoanh et al., 1998; IWMI SEA, 2003; Castella et al., 2007).

11

Figure 2illustrates

how the results from the MGLP can be presented as trade-offs betweenhydropower generation and livelihood enhancement.

The trade-off curves suggest that the higher power generation the lower livelihoodenhancement. Removing a constraint (such as providing more water from upstream of thereservoir) shifts the curve to the right side, hence improving the achievement of bothobjectives (Figure 2).

Adopting an alternative water management scheme that targets livelihood enhancementmay shift the existing trade-off curves such that power generation is reduced in favor ofhigher livelihood enhancement. Presented in this manner, the results of the trade-offanalysis will help the stakeholders’ gain better understanding on what they can achieve andwhat they will lose when considering different water management options. The output ofthe DSS could then provide the basis for developing strategic plans for adaptation to thechanged conditions of WSImanagement and other changes as climate change and productprice variations under Output 4.

To ensure continued use of the DSS as WSI development in the region progresses, qualifiedpartners from the national institutions involved will receive on-the-jobtraining in using theDSS.

Output 4–

Identification of resource use options and livelihoods adaptation strategiesusing the DSS tools

We will base this output on two key pillars: i) the set of development objectives andmanagement strategies prioritized

by stakeholders for each impact zone of the selected WSI(e.g. river bed gardening and aquaculture development in reservoirs A and B), and ii) thequantification and optimization, by using the DSS, of these options, given local water

We will identify resource use and livelihood options by a literature review and participatoryassessments in Output 2, in which we will review the classical options for diversifiedlivelihoods having proven feasible in the region. We will present these options tostakeholders, and seek their input, to identify options acceptable in each site or at eachlevel. We will thereafter integrate these objectives and options into the MGLP optimizationmodel as “objective functions” as described in Output 3.

Once an optimized combination of adaptation options that meet the developmentobjectives is identified by the DSS, we will discuss results with stakeholders at thecommunity, province and national levels, to identify implementation pathways and possibleconstraints. We will also link with the multi-stakeholder platforms created under MK5 duringthis exercise, obtaining views from both pro-dam and anti-dam stakeholders.

We propose to prepare a strategic plan for adaptation for each of the three study sites,taking into account alternative WSI management and priority livelihoods identified throughthis consultative process.

Exposure to available livelihood options and involvement ofstakeholders, in particular at the local level, in the selection of relevant packages will ensurethat the awareness and capacity of local stakeholders to participate in livelihoods/resourceuse prioritization process is substantially improved. We propose, with the assistance of ournational partners, to consider piloting some relatively simple and inexpensive livelihoodadaptation strategies that emerge as the “favoured” options through the stakeholderconsultation process with communities plus the DSS scenarios that are presented.Community members who indicate willingness to pilot test livelihood options through arapid survey will participatein this exercise and dam planners/operators will be involved inthe process to ensure that there is “buy-in” for alternate ways of managing the WSI. Wepropose to monitor the success/failure of these livelihood strategies and prepare a report onthe key findings and lessons learned. This will form part of the MK1 “exit strategy”. MK5 willassist in linking with the relevant institutional networks to facilitate future uptake of thelivelihoods that were considered a success. As part of our review, based on the livelihoodoptions that are selected to be pilot tested, we will also undertake an impact assessment topredict the environmental and social impacts and institutional constraints facing theselected livelihoods and suggest ways of managing these impacts.

10.6 Participatory research approaches

What will you do to ensure that the potential users do learn what is necessary to adopt?

As our outputs would have been derived through a participatory stakeholder consultationprocess, we will use similar participatory approaches to discuss our findings with the variousstakeholders (including next users of our outputs) and discuss the most suitable ways inwhich they can adopt and use the outputs and how they can overcome possible constraintsthat they may face

in the process.

10.7 Change in user practice

What will users do differently by adopting and using the research outputs?

13

Users will have the information required to optimize the productivity and equitable use ofwater stored in WSI such as large reservoirs, enabling them to promote synergies betweendifferent use options, in a manner that optimizes income and food security (for farmers,fishers and riparian communities), water productivity (hydropower, irrigation) andenvironmental sustainability, while minimizing negative impacts. They will also have thenecessary information to promote appropriate policy interventions tooptimize resource useoptions, possible achievement and trade-offs based on the outcomes of the optimizationmodel produced under the DSS.

10.8 Suggested sites

Taking into account sites mentioned in the description of the BDC research program, and theneed to work together with other projects, where will this project work?

the loss offisheries and aquatic resources, impacting120,000 peopledownstream(Shoemaker et al.,2001). We will assess livelihoods in resettled communities that use the drawdown area toproduce rice and raise livestock.

If an additional site is required to undertake some livelihoods and fisheries relatedassessment we propose to look at the Nam Theun Hinboun. This is a privately financed damthat officially commenced operation in 1998. According to Shoemaker (1998), approximately6000 people close to the project site had to be settled as they were considered to bevulnerable to the effects of the project. In addition, many people living downstream havebeen reported to have been impacted by declines in fish catches, flooding or vegetablegardens and freshwater shortages.

We will emphasize downstream irrigation and reservoir aquaculture in the Se

San cascade inVietnam, where the demand for energy is increasingrapidly. The Central Highlands, which

is

an important agricultural region,

will play an important role in meeting Vietnam’s energyand development needs. On the Se San River several damsarealready operating, underconstruction, or in planning. The Yali Falls dam for example was constructed between 1993and 1996, with a 64.5 km2 reservoir filled by 1998. It aims to generate 720 MW ofhydropower. Like many large dam projects, it has been highly criticized for causing variousenvironmental impacts such as causing flooding and damaging fisheries. The irregularrelease of a large amount of water from its reservoir has affected the hydrological regimeand the water quality of the Se San River downstream. The Se San cascade potentially offers

14

an opportunity to optimize reservoir management to meet expected growth in irrigatedagriculture and aquaculture.

The area downstream of hydropower installations on the Se San River in Cambodia offersthe opportunity to addressimpacts of WSI on ecosystem services, includingwild capturefisheriesandNTFPs. Focusing on both the Se San River in Cambodia and the cascade of damsin Vietnam, we will examine opportunities for managing water releasesto sustain

aquaticecosystems and the environment in anintegrated,international river basin. It must be notedthat according to Baird (2009), the Sesan 2 dam if built can be expected for cause thefollowing impacts: about 78,000 people living above the proposed dam site are expected tolose access to migratory fish while tens of thousands of people living downstream from thedam site would be negatively impacted due to changes in hydrology and water quality,causing fisheries losses and impacts on domestic water supplies.

These proposed sites are based on CPWF recommendation and through consensus at theinception workshop in February. However, we realize that government commitment to thesite selection will be crucial and therefore in the project inception phase will undertakeconsultations with the relevant governments and dam operators/developers with theassistance of MK5 to finalize the site selection. In addition, during the inception phase wehope to undertake some reconnaissance visits to the proposed sites to determine, from apractical point of view, the feasibility of working in these sites–

for example, what is thedegree of access we have to existing information and data; are we targetingcommunities/households that are suffering from development research “fatigue”–

withseveral groups already working in the same areas

in the past; are there multiple usesassociated with the site and diverse livelihood activities, etc.

11. Communications and alignment with CPWF Culture

11.1 Communications

The project is expected to contribute to the following communications products:

Briefly describe your communications plan

The communication products will include:

-

At least two

journal articles and one policy brief (in English, Khmer, Vietnamese, andLao) characterizing agro-ecological systems and livelihoods in the three study sub-basins, along with livelihood options available through optimizing benefits of WSI andadaptation strategies.

-

Three, more detailed reports covering these same aspects, one for each of the sub-basins, including results of stakeholder consultations

-

Short, journalistic articles summarizing project findings, for national media and regionalpublications such as MRC updates

-

A DSS software package that can be used in future consultations with local stakeholdersand easily modified to accommodate future developments or different characteristicsin other sub-basins, along with a simple user’s guide; available by CD-ROM and webdownload

-

A suite of popular communication products in multiple media (posters, short videoclips, cartoon books) in local languages, relating

key messages on local ecology andlivelihoods, WSI development choices, and specific livelihood development options

15

(e.g., pond aquaculture, techniques for preventing soil erosion and improving cropproduction on sloping lands, etc.) that can be used in extension programs ofgovernment, NGOs, and community-based networks, and also reproduced or broadcastthrough mass media.

An open access website to make available preliminary project results and draftcommunication products for peer review and stakeholder feedback, and to disseminatefinal products

We will elaborate and adapt the communications plan and impact pathway at the start ofthe project in consultation with the teams implementing Mekong Projects 2 and 3 (regardingtechnical content) and Projects

The CPWF wishes to foster an evaluative culture in its BDCs and component projects. Anevaluative culture is one that encourages learning and change by supporting project staffand partners to engage in self-reflection and self-examination, seek evidence and make timeto learn. Evidence will likely derive from monitoring and evaluation including gender anddiversity analysis. Note that BDC Coordination Project will provide support in this regard,beginning in the Inception Workshop. You may include your expectations for the supportyou will need here.

Briefly describe how you will support an evaluative culture in the project

The project’s implementation context is very dynamic in terms of changes in the status ofWSI development in each sub-basin and changes in stakeholder needs and priorities. Wetherefore recognize the need to adopt

the principles of ongoing, adaptive evaluation.Important aspects to be evaluated periodically during implementation include the extent towhich:

-

The focal questions for analysis are responding to the most important needs andpriorities of local stakeholders, particularly poorer households, and with specialattention to women’s voices.

-

The selected methodologies for analysis are being implemented to deliver results thatwill be easily understood by local stakeholders, including poorer households (e.g.livelihood strategies) and decision makers (regarding WSI development choices andmanagement options).

-

Local partners are gaining skills to apply and adapt the assessment tools used.

-

Communication products are reaching key audiences effectively, and how well thecommunication plan is integrated within the communication and stakeholderengagement activities of allied CPWF projects, particularly basin projects 4 and 5.

Project implementation will be undertaken jointly withnational partners, with

regards to technical content, stakeholder engagement and

16

communications. Skills development of local partners is an explicit objective and acomponent of ongoing evaluation during project implementation. Capacity developmentthrough on-the-job training and short seminars, and degree training will be available andsupported to both project team members and partner institutions more generally.

Interdisciplinary research:

Each of the two components and the overall project is designedas an interdisciplinary package. Specialists in areas such as geo-spatial modeling, decisionsupport systems, soil science, water management, fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture, andlivelihoods assessment will design research plans jointly and integrate their findings in ways

that communicate most effectively to key stakeholders.

Gender and diversity:

Each of the sub-basins are home to significant ethnic minoritypopulations, so a special focus of attention will be to ensure that these diverse voices arerepresented accurately in the analysis undertaken. Livelihood assessment and stakeholderengagement methodologies will give special attention as well to ensuring that women’svoices are given equal weight, and that livelihood development strategies are appropriate towomen’s

needs. In addition, the project team itself represents exceptional gender andnational diversity, and this will be carried through in capacity building activities.

3/Wetlands research that includesstudying ecosystem services in thecontext of livelihoods and tools toassess integration of wetlandbiodiversity conservation and povertyreduction and integrated approaches–

how socioeconomics can be integratedinto multidisciplinary research.

4/Prior experience of projectleadership and management.

Overall Project Leader;responsible for all reporting;contribute to the livelihoodaspects of the project underOutputs: 1, 2, 3 & 4.

Monitoring and evaluationin accordance with Section12.2 above.

30% commitment to PN71as project leader for 2010.Will commit 50% of timeto this project and 20% toProject 2 if

2/ Water modeling and remotesensing applications for waterresources planning and management.

3/ GIS and water modeling formanaging agriculutre and aquacultureconflicts.

4/ Optimization in land use planningat sub-national level

5/ Role-playing games and agent-based models for facilitatingLead the development ofDSS under Output 3 andcontribute toOutputs: 2 &4. This role will be mainlysupervising staff deployedon Outputs 3 & 4.

For 2010 70% of timecommitted to activitiesassociated with MRCclimate changedownscaling; modelingactivities for themainstream of theMekong; and thecompletion of activitieswithin the CPWF Phase 1programme. Acommitment of at least

18

Teammember’sname

Professionaldiscipline

Institutional affiliationand address

Area of expertise important to thisproject.

Brief description ofresearch responsibilities.

Commitments

integrated water resourcesmanagement.

20% will be made to theproject if successful.

Matthew

McCartney(MM)

Hydrology andWater Resources

International WaterManagement Institute,IWMI

Sub RegionalOffice for Nile Basin &Eastern Africa caba,Ethiopia.

m.mccartney@cgiar.org

1/ Hydrology and water resourcemodelling and management; 2/largedam operation and environmentalflow estimation; 3/public healthimpacts of large dams; 4/ wetlandsagriculture and livelihoods

Support activities in thedevelopment of DSS underOutputs: 3 & 4.

A commitment of 20% in

the first 2 years of theproject. This will be scaledback to a minimum of 10%in the final two years.

1/ Policy and legal analysis andinstitutional mapping for naturalresource governance at national, sub-national and local scales, especially inwetlands and forestry systems. 2/Water governance analysis at national,sub-national and local scales. 3/Monitoring and evaluation of povertyreduction-

of damson the Nam Ngum riversystem; TransboundaryDiagnostic Analysis for theOkavango River Basin;CPWF Mekong Project 2&3 (proposed). Occasionalinput over the life of theproject as requested.

22

Provide a brief text statement on why the lead institution is well-placed to lead thegroup.

IWMI and before that, theInternational Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM), hasmore than 20 years experience in working in the countries of the lower Mekong Basin. Itsresearch portfolio and experience over this period has covered the entire continuum from issuesassociated with land and water resources management at the individual household levelthrough to contributing to the development of hydrological models for the Mekong mainstreamand tributaries. Our experience in watershed management and understanding the processcontributing to sediment generation and its mitigation

will be invaluable in addressing livelihoodoptions within the impact zone of these large WSI. Our role in irrigation in the region isextensive–

ranging from implementation of participatory irrigation management in Cambodiato investigating the optimization of water allocation in diversified river basins in Thailand (MaeKlong basin). IWMI Southeast Asia has significant expertise in Agent Based Modeling (ABM) thathas been successfully deployed on previous CPWF projects. The current skills that are based

inthe region and would be at the disposal of the project cover modeling of hydrology and landresources, and social disciplines. IWMI has developed strong and meaningful relations with lineagencies in the water and agricultural sectors in each of the four lower Mekong countries,

whichwill be invaluable in implementing this project.

Provide brief text statements on why the proposed institutions are qualified to carry out theproposed research.

Institution 1:The WorldFish Centeris one of the 15 centers

of the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR), with a mission to reduce poverty and hunger byimproving fisheries and aquaculture. The Center also has a high-level Country Agreement withthe Royal Government of Cambodia represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, withextended privileges that also cover IWMI. WorldFish has been leading a number of researchprojects in the Mekong region in the past years and also collaborated with key regionalintergovernmental bodies such asFAO and MRC, on various joint projects. It has led andcontributed to a number of CPWF Phase I projects, including CP/PN71-

Water allocation inTonle Sap, CP/PN 35-

Community-Based Fish Culture, and

CP/PN 10-

Coastal resourcemanagement for improving livelihoods and contributed to expert meetings and stakeholderconsultation processes organized by the MRC Fisheries Programme, the Basin DevelopmentPlan, and the Hydropower Programme.

Institution 2:ICEM-

The International Centre for Environmental Management

is anindependent public interest centre that helps governments, private sector and communitiesdefine and implement policies for ecologically sustainable development. It has been building onthe work undertaken by various MRC programs, including thefisheries, navigation andagricultural programs as well the Basin Development Planning process. The result will be anadvisory study to guide and inform MRC member countries. In addition, ICEM has alsocontributed to a number of SEAs (Strategic Environmental Assessment) for hydropower sectorplans and conducted climate change impact and adaptation studies in Vietnam. ICEM hasrecently been commissioned by the Mekong River Commission to undertake a SEA

society and the private sector, to facilitate information exchange and stakeholder participation.The country-level consultationhas been facilitated by the National Mekong Committees.

Etc: NARES partners:

In Cambodia we will work with theDepartment of Agricultural Extension(DAE) within the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), and its staff based atthe Provincial Departments of Agriculture. MAFF has developed and officially adopted aparticipatory commune agro-ecosystem analysis (CAEA) system. These assessments cover thecharacteristics of the land, land use, topography, water management issues including watersources and user groups as well as community characteristics and the priority communeagricultural concerns. DAE is mandated to implement CAEA around the country and to providetechnical and extension support to a network of commune and district level developmentplanning bodies.

In Lao PDR we will work with theNational Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI)

within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Its mandate is toconsolidate agriculture andforestry research initiatives within LaoPDR under a single Institute and to develop a coordinatedAgriculture and Forestry Research System. Within the Institute there are key four keycommodity based livelihood centers that include the rice and commercial crops research center;forestry research

centre; livestock research center; and living aquatic resources research centerall of which will be important in the assessment of community livelihoods. Further theagriculture land research centre and the agriculture and forestry policy research center

In Vietnam we will work with theSoils and FertilizerResearch Institute (SFRI), which is thepreeminent land resources research institute under the Vietnamese Academy of AgriculturalSciences (VAAS) ofthe Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). For more than30 years, SFRI (formerly NISF) has worked in the field of sustainable land and natural resourcesmanagement and demonstrated its ability to provide high quality research expertise in the areasof land use planning, soil science, natural resource management and environmentalmanagement. It is the leading organization in Vietnam in understanding the processes of soilerosion within highly incised catchments and the quantification of sediment generation fromchanged land use that is critical for water storage structures.

CPWF. 2007. Water Allocation in Tonle Sap: APIA and AEA to support decision making for waterallocation for fisheries and agriculture in Tonle Sap. CGIAR Challenge Program on Waterand Food. Project PN 71.http://www.waterandfood.org/research/competitive-call-projects/project-detail/71-water-allocation-in-tonle-sap.html.

InSysNet Research Paper Series No. 1. Proceedings of an InternationalWorkshop held at Can Tho, Vietnam, June 15-19, 1998.International Rice ResearchInstitute (IRRI), Philippines and National Agricultural Research Systems in India, Malaysia,Philippines and Vietnam.

pp. 41-56.

IWMI-SEA. 2003. Exploratory Analysis of Multiple Use Options for Land and Water ResourcesPlanningand Management: Case Study on the Mae Klong River Basin, Thailand. FinalReport. International Water Management Institute, Southeast Asia Regional Office (IWMI-SEA), Kasetsart University–

Shoemaker, B, Baird, I., and Baird, M. 2001. The People and their River: A survey of river-basedlivelihoods in the Xe Bang Fai Basin in Central Lao PDR. Lao PDR/Canada Fund for LocalInitiatives, Vientiane, Laos.

World Bank-ADB (Asian Development Bank).

2006.Future directions for water resourcesmanagement in the Mekong River Basin.WB/ADB joint working paper on Mekong WaterResources Assistance Strategy. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank; Manila, Philippines:Asian Development Bank. 70 pp.